False Flag Operation: 911
author: €
More and more alternative media is taking hold of the story that many
of us already concluded with: that the Amerikan Fascists were either
connected or even activally took part in the events of September
11th. These are some recent articles within the last few hours or
days in a simple google news search.
Also I recommend if you have not seen or heard the lecture from David
Griffin then explore this site:
 http://www.wanttoknow.info/050504davidraygriffin
|
A Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask
Posted: 2006/02/19
From: Counterpunch
Who Is Osama? Where Did He Come From? How Did He Escape? What About
Those Anthrax Attacks?
The events of September 11, 2001 evoke painful memories, tinged with
a powerful nostalgia for the way of life before it happened. The
immediate tragedy caused a disorientation sufficient to distort the
critical faculties in the direction of retrospectively predictable
responses: bureaucratic adaptation, opportunism, profiteering, kitsch
sentiment, and mindless sloganeering.
As 9/11, and the report of the commission charged to investigate it,
fade into history like the Warren Commission that preceded it, the
questions, gaps, and anomalies raised by the report have created an
entire cottage industry of amateur speculation--as did the omissions
and distortions of the Warren Report four decades ago. How could it
not?
While initially received as definitive by a rapturous official press,
the 9/11 Report has been overtaken by reality, not only because of
unsatisfying content--like all "independent" government reports, it
is fundamentally an apology and a coverup masquerading as an exposé--
but because we now know more: more about the feckless invasion of
Iraq, more about the occupation of Afghanistan and the purported hunt
for Osama bin Laden, more about the post-9/11 stampede to repeal
elements of the Bill of Rights, more about the rush to create the
Department of Homeland Security, an agency to "prevent another 9/11,"
which, in retrospect, is plainly about cronyism, contracts, and
Congressional boodle.
Many of the amateur sleuths of the 9/11 mystery have based their
investigations on microscopic forensics regarding the publicly
released video footage, or speculations into the physics of impacting
aircraft or collapsing buildings. But staring too closely at the
recorded traces of subatomic phenomena involved in a one-time event
can deceive us into finding the answer we are looking for, as
Professor Heisenberg once postulated. Over 40 years on, the Magic
Bullet is still the Magic Bullet: improbable, yes, but not outside
the realm of the possible.
But there is surprisingly little discussion of the basic higher-order
political factors surrounding 9/11, factors that do not require
knowledge of the melting point of girder steel or the unknowable
piloting abilities of the presumed perpetrators. Let us proceed,
then, in a spirit of detached scientific inquiry, to ask questions
the 9/11 Commission was unprepared to ask.
1. Who is Osama bin Laden, and where did he come from?
On this point, the report retreats into obfuscation. While
acknowledging that he had something to do with resisting the Soviet
occupation of Afghanistan, the report suggests, without explicitly so
stating, that the links between Osama and the United States were
practically nonexistent. This will not parse: until the present
Global War on Terrorism, the CIA's operation against the Red Army in
Afghanistan was the biggest and most expensive covert operation in
the agency's history. The 9/11 Report provides no convincing
documented refutation of Osama's links with the CIA, given that the
agency was running a major war in which he was a participant.
Similarly, the report's authors did not plumb the informal U.S.
government connections with the same Saudi government whose links
with the bin Laden family could have provided a cut-out for any CIA-
Osama relationship. [1]
2. When were Osama's last non-hostile links with the U.S. government?
Consistent with its view of Osama's relationship with the CIA during
the anti-Soviet enterprise, the 9/11 Report ignores the possibility
that he may have had a continuing relationship with the U.S.
government, particularly with its intelligence services. The report
brushes this hypothesis aside with a footnote to the effect that both
the CIA and purported second-ranking al Qaeda figure Ayman al
Zawahiri deny a relationship. [2]
One may doubt the veracity of Langley's denials of a relationship
with Osama bin Laden and his associates, given the lack of
truthfulness of its earlier statement to the Warren Commission about
not having had a relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald. Or in alleging
that an employee named "Mr. George Bush" whom the agency cited in its
reporting of the events of 22 November 1963 was a completely
different person from the George Bush who subsequently became the
41st U.S. president, after serving as Director of Central
Intelligence.
Likewise, Mr. Zawahiri's assertion of not having received a penny of
CIA funds deserves the searchlight of skeptical scrutiny. What the
report describes as Zawahiri's "memoir" is actually a broadside
published in a London-based newspaper in December 2001, i.e., after
the events of 9/11. It was obviously intended as a call to the Muslim
faithful for a holy war against the infidel desecrator of the holy
places; would such a person, conscious of the need to gain recruits
in a war of pure faith against the Great Satan, have confirmed having
been on the payroll of his principal enemy? It is no more likely than
for the current President of the United States, in drawing parallels
between the war in Iraq and World War II, to advert to the fact that
his grandfather's bank was seized by the U.S. government in 1942 for
illicit trading with the Third Reich.
Indeed, U.S. intelligence agencies have had, purely as a function of
their charters, relationships with most of the world's scoundrels,
con-men, and psychopaths of the last 70 years: from Lucky Luciano and
the Gambino Mob, to Reinhard Gehlen and Timothy Leary, to the
perpetrators of the massacre of 500,000 people in Indonesia in 1965,
to the Cuban exiles who blew up an airliner in 1976 [3], to such
shady characters as Ahmed Chalabi and his friend "Curveball." Among
such a gallery of murderous kooks, bin Laden and his cohorts do not
especially stand out.
More dispositive than these speculations, however, are the very real
connections between Washington and Islamic jihadists in the Balkans
throughout the 1990s. The report hints at this relationship by
mentioning the presence of charity fronts of bin Laden's "network" in
Zagreb and Sarajevo. In fact, the U.S. government engaged in a
massive covert operation to infiltrate Islamic fighters, many of them
veterans of the Afghan war, into the Balkans for the purpose of
undermining the Milosevic government. The "arms embargo," enforced by
the U.S. military, was a cover for this activity (i.e., using
military force to keep prying eyes from seeing what was going on).
A key Washington fixer for the Muslim government of Bosnia was the
law firm of Feith and Zell. Yes, Douglas Feith, one of the principal
conspirators involved in launching the Iraq war under the banner of
opposing Islamic terrorism, was a proponent of introducing Islamic
terrorists into South Eastern Europe. Do the "Islamofascists" of
pseudo-conservative demonology accordingly seem less like satanic
enemies and more like puppets dangling from an unseen hand? Or
perhaps the analogy is incorrect: more like a Frankenstein's Monster
that has slipped the control of its creator.
3. How did the President of United States React to the August 6 2001
Presidential Daily Brief?
Although the August 6 PBD had been mentioned in the foreign press
since 2002, it did not come to the attention of official Washington
until then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice impaled herself
upon the hook of 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben Veniste's artful
line of questioning in mid-2004. Blurting out the title of the
PBD, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," she let the cat out of
the bag--or perhaps not. Having opened Pandora's Box, the
commissioners displayed no troublesome curiosity about its contents.
What concrete measures did the president take after receiving perhaps
the most significant strategic warning that any head of state could
have hoped to receive about an impending attack on his country? Did
he alert the intelligence agencies, law enforcement, the Border
patrol, the Federal Aviation Administration, to comb through their
current information and increase their alert rates? Did the threat
warning of the PBD (granted that it did not reveal the tail numbers
of the aircraft to be hijacked), in combination with the numerous
threat warnings from other sources [4] elicit feverish activity
to "protect the American people?" Not that we can observe.
So what was the actual response of the U.S. government? Here the 9/11
Report exhibits autism. As nearly as we can determine from
contemporaneous bulletins, the president massacred whole hecatombs of
mesquite bushes and large-mouthed bass, perfected his golf swing, and
hosted various captains of industry in the rustic repose of Crawford,
Texas. In other words, he presided over the most egregious example of
Constitutional nonfeasance since the administration of James Buchanan
allowed Southern secessionists to take possession of the arms in
several federal arsenals. The 9/11 Commission's silence on this point
is an abundant demonstration of its role as an apologist, rather than
a dispassionate truth-teller.
The testimony of federal officials about what they did up to and
during the attacks is telling, in so far as the false and misleading
statements of witnesses provide clues. Ms. Rice, her tremulous voice
betraying nervousness, averred, against the plain evidence of the
public record and common sense, that a PBD stating that Osama bin
Laden was determined to strike within the borders of the United
States was too ambiguous to take any action.
Likewise, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft may have perjured
himself when he denied under oath that acting FBI Director Thomas
Pickard came to him on July 5, 2001 with information of terrorist
plots--information that the Attorney General "did not want to hear
about anymore," as NBC News reported on June 22, 2004. It might be
considered a matter of Ashcroft's word against Pickering's, except
for the fact that Pickering had a corroborating witness.
4. Who wrote the script for the rhetorical response to 9/11?
The smoke was still rising from the rubble of the World Trade Center
complex and the Pentagon when the unanimous and universal cry erupted
in government circles, and was relentlessly amplified by the media,
that this was "war," not a criminal act of terrorism. How very
convenient that this war, declared against a diffuse and stateless
entity, would trigger long-sought legal authorities and
constitutional loopholes which would not apply in the case of a
criminal act. [5] Torture, domestic spying, selective suspension of
habeas corpus, all the unconstitutional monsters whose implications
are only clear four years after the event, all slipped into immediate
usage with the rhetorical invocation of war.
This was not merely war, it was unlimited war, both in the sense of
total war meant by General Ludendorff (civilian rights being
trivial), and in the sense of lacking a comprehensible time span. "A
war that will not end in our lifetimes," said Vice President Cheney
on Meet the Press on the very Sunday following the attacks. How could
he be so sure during the fog of uncertainty following the strike?
If bin Laden and his followers were merely a limited number of
fanatics living in Afghan caves, as we were assured at the time, why
did the Bush administration relentlessly advance the meme that a
decades-long war was inevitable? Could not a concerted intelligence,
law-enforcement, and diplomatic campaign, embracing all sovereign
countries, have effectively shut down "al Qaeda" within a reasonable
period of time--say, within the period it took to fight World War II
between Pearl Harbor and the Japanese surrender?
Four years on, Vice President Cheney, doing a plausible imitation of
the radio voice of The Shadow, continues to publicly mutter, in
menacing tones of the lower octaves, that the war on terrorism [6] is
a conflict that will last for decades. [7] This at the same time as
the junior partner of the ruling dyarchy, the sitting president, is
giving upbeat speeches promising victory in the war on terrorism
(i.e., Iraq, the Central Front on the War on Terrorism) against a
papier maché backdrop containing the printed slogan "Strategy for
Victory."
It is curious that no one--not the watchdogs of the supposedly
adversary media, nor the nominal opposition party in Washington, nor
otherwise intelligent observers--has remarked on this seeming
contradiction: victory is just around the corner, yet the war will
last for decades. Quite in the manner of the war between Eastasia and
Oceania in 1984.
In earlier times, this contradiction would have seemed newsworthy, if
not scandalous. Suppose President Roosevelt had opined at the Teheran
Conference that the Axis would be defeated in two years. Then suppose
his vice president had at the same time traveled about the United
States telling his audiences that the Axis would not be defeated for
decades. An American public not yet conditioned by television would
at least have noticed, and demanded some explanation.
So question number 4 concludes with a question: why does the U.S.
government hive so firmly to the notion of a long, drawn-out,
indeterminate war, when Occam's Razor would suggest the desirability
of presenting a clear-cut victory within the span of imagination of
the average impatient American--a couple of years at most? Or is
endless war the point?
5. Why did the mysterious anthrax attacks come and go like a wraith?
For those in immediate proximity to the events, the September
11attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were frightening
in the extreme, but they had not the slow accumulation of dread that
the anthrax scare of October 2001 presented. Far more than any
anomaly concerning 9/11 itself, the anthrax mystery is the undecoded
Rosetta Stone of recent years.
The anthrax attacks were the most anomalous terrorist attacks in
history: clever, successful, unpunished, causing five deaths and a
billion dollars' damage. Yet never repeated. This alone makes them
remarkable in the annals of criminal activity, but there is more--the
intended victims (at least those with an official position) were
warned in writing of their peril in sufficient detail that they could
take steps to administer an antidote. Is this characteristic of
terrorist attacks by "al Qaeda," or by any known Middle Eastern
terrorist group?
Except for the ambiguous first attack (which killed a National
Enquirer photo editor), all the deaths resulting from the anthrax
plot were incidental--mail handlers and innocent recipients of mail
which had been contaminated by proximity to the threat letters.
Evidently the West Jefferson anthrax strain was more powerful and had
greater accidental effects than the plotters had intended.
But what did the plotters intend, if they did not will the deaths of
the addressees of their anthrax letters? It was pure coincidence,
perhaps, that the anthrax scare was at its height, producing
psychosomatic illness symptoms among members of Congress and
staffers, just as the USA PATRIOT Act was wending its way through the
legislative process. This measure, which originated among the same
Justice Department lawyers who legally opined that torture was
wholesome, was rammed through the Congress after enactment of the
authorization of the use of force in Afghanistan. Why is this
sequence significant?
The then-majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Tom Daschle, wrote a
curious op-ed in the Washington Post four years after the events just
described. [8]. In attempting to refute the administration's
allegation that it had been granted plenary wiretap powers in the
Afghanistan authorization, he stated that he and his Senatorial
confreres explicitly rejected an administration proposal to authorize
an effective state of war within the borders of the United States
itself.
Given the administration's repeatedly demonstrated refusal to accept
any limitation on its powers, it is logical that the rebuff on the
war powers authorization was followed by the prompt submittal of the
Justice Department's draft of the PATRIOT Act, containing many of the
domestic authorities the Bush White House had sought in the use of
force legislation. How doubly coincidental that two of the limited
number of addressees of the threat letters should have been the
offices of Daschle himself, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, then-chairman of
the committee of jurisdiction over the PATRIOT Act.
Needless to say, the measure was passed by an even more comfortable
margin than that enjoyed by the 1933 Enabling Law in the Reichstag.
[9] Notwithstanding buyer's remorse exhibited by many members of
Congress, and current efforts to amend its more onerous provisions,
it appears we are saddled with the main burdens of its edicts in
perpetuity.
How the government placed this perpetual burden on its citizens is
bound up with the mysterious anthrax scare of October 2001, an
outrage that, unlike 9/11, does not even merit an official
explanation. No one has been charged.
6. Why did Osama bin Laden escape?
"Wanted, dead or alive!" "We'll smoke 'em out of their caves!" All
Americans know the feeling of righteous retribution that attended the
hunt for Osama bin Laden in the autumn and winter of 2001. Yet,
suddenly, it fizzled out and became subsumed in attacking Iraq and
its oilfields.
We know the explanation. Somehow, bin Laden escaped in the battle of
Tora Bora, because "the back door was open." Only after the invasion
of Iraq, more than a year later, was there general acknowledgement
that resources intended for Afghanistan had been diverted to the
buildup for Iraq. The public was lead to believe that supplemental
appropriations for Afghanistan were siphoned into the Iraq project
beginning about mid-2002.
But the strange apathy about Osama's whereabouts began sooner than
that. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, then-Senate
Intelligence Committee Bob Graham states the following:
"I was asked by one of the senior commanders of Central Command to go
into his office [this presumably means the CENTCOM Commander, GEN
Tommy Franks. Underlings do not summon senior Senators into their
offices]. We did, the door was closed, and he turned to me, and he
said, 'Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in
Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and
resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.'
This is February of 2002 [emphasis added]. 'Senator, what we are
engaged in now is a manhunt not a war, and we are not trained to
conduct a manhunt.'"
Senator Graham elaborates on this matter in his book, Intelligence
Matters, on page 125:
"At that point, General Franks asked for an additional word with me
in his office. When I walked in, he closed the door. Looking
troubled, he said, 'Senator, we are not engaged in a war in
Afghanistan.'
"'Excuse me?" I asked.
"'Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare
for an action in Iraq,' he continued. 'The Predators are being
relocated. What we are doing is a manhunt. We have wrapped ourselves
too much in trailing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. We're better at
being a meat axe than finding a needle in a haystack. That's not our
mission, and that's not what we are trained or prepared to do.'"
In the first excerpt, the military officer might be ambivalent about
the change in mission, merely saying that the U.S. military is
supposedly not trained for conducting manhunts. The second excerpt
provides more substance, suggesting that Franks himself agrees that
looking for Osama bin Laden is a mug's game ("We have wrapped
ourselves too much in trailing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.")
There we have it: as early as February 2002, the U.S. government was
pulling the plug. Or was it even earlier? Gary Berntsen, a former CIA
officer, says in his book Jawbreaker that his paramilitary team
tracked bin Laden to the Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have
killed or captured him if his superiors had agreed to his request for
an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops. But the administration
was already gearing up for war with Iraq and troops were never sent,
allowing bin Laden to escape.
Now, Berntsen is a typical Langley boy scout who buys into most of
the flummery about the war on terrorism; but it is precisely for that
reason that his testimony is worthwhile. Here is no ideological
critic of the Bush administration and its foreign policies--on the
contrary, he shares many of its assumptions. Like fellow Agency
alumnus Michael Scheuer, he has experienced the cognitive dissonance
of dealing with the administration's policies at first hand, and
wishes to report on his findings.
Is it plausible that the United States Military, disposing of 1.4
million active duty troops and a million reservists, could not scare
up 800 additional troops to capture what was then characterized as a
fiend in human form? Perhaps the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Richard Myers, explained it best in a CNN interview on
6 April 2002, well after the hunt for bin Laden had apparently been
concluded:
"Well, if you remember, if we go back to the beginning of this
segment, the goal has never been to get bin Laden." [10]
What can one conclude from this series of questions? If the 9/11
mystery is like other great, mysterious events--such as the Kennedy
assassination--the course is probable. For a year or two, raw emotion
over the event forecloses inquiry; for the next several years after
that, the public's attention wanes, and the desire to forget the
painful memory predominates.
In a decade or so, though, some debunker will bring new facts into
the public arena for the edification of those Americans, then in late
middle age, who will view 9/11 as an intellectual puzzle: far from
the urgent concerns of their daily lives.
Many people may, by that time, accept that the official explanation
is bunk, and suspect that the government had once again tricked the
American public, those ever-willing foils in the eternal Punch-and-
Judy show. But the majority will neither know nor care about obscure
international relationships during a bygone era.
In 1939, the English author Eric Ambler wrote a brilliant and now-
disregarded novel whose theme was that the political events
culminating in World War II were indistinguishable from the squalid
doings of ordinary criminals. Let us quote from that novel, The Mask
of Dimitrios:
"A writer of plays said that there are some situations that one
cannot use on the stage; situations in which the audience can feel
neither approval, sympathy, nor antipathy; situations out of which
there is no possible way that is not humiliating or distressing and
from which there is no truth, however bitter, to be extracted. . . .
All I know is that while might is right, while chaos and anarchy
masquerade as order and enlightenment, these conditions will obtain."
Werther is the pen name of a Northern Virginia-based defense analyst.
Werther can be reached at:  werther@counterpunch.org
[1] Bob Woodward's 1987 book Veil describes the informal connections
between personages in the U.S. government and the Saudi government,
including the ubiquitous Prince Bandar. A tęte á tęte between CIA
director William Casey and the Prince supposedly resulted in a false-
flag "terrorist" bombing in Beirut to retaliate against the bombing
of the Marine barracks there in 1983. Regrettably, the dead were
mainly civilians.
[2] 9/11 Commission Report, 23rd footnote to chapter two, page 467.
[3] This is the case of Cuban "freedom fighter" Luis Posada Carriles,
who is suspected of sending the jet-borne Cuban Olympic fencing team
to Valhalla in order to express his opposition to Fidel Castro. The
incumbent administration, otherwise so steadfastly opposed to
international terrorism, has been resistant to extraditing Mr.
Posada --no doubt the administration is casting an eye on Florida's
electoral votes.
[4] To include the Phoenix Memo, FBI agent Colleen Rowley's urgent
bulletins from Minnesota, tips from foreign intelligence agencies,
warnings from the Federal government to its high-ranking government
placemen not to fly by commercial airliner, the contemporaneously
noted presence of art students-cum-Mossad agents within two blocks of
9/11 operative Mohammed Atta, and other indicators.
[5] Long sought by Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld, whose formative and
traumatic experiences in the executive branch were shaped by their
revulsion against attempts by Congress, the federal bench, and the
American people, to restrain Richard M. Nixon's assertion that the
Constitution does not apply to a sitting president.
[6] The phrase "war on terrorism" is, as many people have commented,
a somewhat hazy conception, being a war on a tactic, much as if FDR
had declared war on naval aviation after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Significantly, the popular mind has contracted this phrase into "the
war on terror," an even more illogical coinage. If the U.S.
government is truly at war against a mental state that gives rise to
ill-defined dread, it should disestablish itself forthwith, to the
benefit of our rights, our bank balances, and our physical safety.
[7] "Cheney Warns of Decades of War," BBC, 6 October 2005.
[8] "Power We Didn't Grant," by Sen. Tom Daschle, Washington Post, 23
December 2005.
[9] The Enabling Law passed the Reichstag by a vote of 444-94,
whereas the PATRIOT Act passed the House by a margin of 357-66, and
the Senate by a vote of 98-1. Curiously, the Enabling Law was
supposed to sunset in four years: on April Fool's Day, 1937,
precisely paralleling the four-year expiration of many of the PATRIOT
Act's provisions. Perhaps the eerie similarity reflects the influence
of Nazi legal scholar Carl Schmitt on neoconservative lawyers of the
Bush administration like David S. Addington, John Yoo, and Viet Dinh.
[10] News transcript: Gen. Myers Interview with CNN TV,
http://www.defenselink.mil
/transcripts/2002/t04082002_t407genm.html
http://www.counterpunch.org
found at http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=528431
____
Alternative views on US government role evolve from "let it happen on
purpose" to "inside job from start to finish"
(I-Newswire) - Washington, DC. For skeptics of the official story of
9/11, the taboo of 2002 has become the cornerstone of 2006: they are
now convinced the Twin Towers and Building WTC 7 did not collapse
from fire, but were demolished by explosives - an act that could only
be carried out from inside the US power structure (
www.waronfreedom.org/synth/wtc7-downfall.png ).
"Against the weight of physical evidence, half-way positions finally
have nothing to support them, just like the free-fall collapse of
building WTC-7," says John Leonard, who publishes several books on
9/11 under the Progressive Press imprint.
The latest is Webster Griffin Tarpley's "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made
in USA" ( 2nd edition, January 2006 ), and it lives up to its
uncompromising title. "The demolition of the three towers is the end
station with other 9/11 critiques that get that far," Leonard
notes. "For Tarpley it is only the opener in his case against the
terror oligarchs." ( www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf ) The real
meat is his model of "state-sponsored false-flag terrorism" - a
ruling rogue network of moles, patsies, professional killers, a
privatized headquarters, and controlled corporate media.
Terror and covert operations are logical necessities, Tarpley says,
in order to uphold any regime that serves the interests of the few in
the guise of mass democracy. Activist as well as author, he is
recently warning that the planned attack on Iran is not due to any
nuclear program, but to Iran's planned oil bourse (
www.prweb.com/releases/2006/01/prweb337360.htm ), which could knock
out the underpinnings of the deficit-stretched US dollar. Tarpley is
on talk radio at least once a week, with a smooth, erudite delivery
that lends credibility to his radical findings. ( see
www.waronfreedom.org/radio.html )
There is a market for the mix. The book has earned 5-star reviews on
Amazon ( see www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0930852311 and
www.waronfreedom.org/synth/reviews.html ).
So far this year, the Amazon sales rank for "9/11 Synthetic Terror"
has led all other 9/11 exposés, vying with the official report of the
9/11 Commission for first place.
Most of the other alternative 9/11 authors tried Michael Moore's
easier path to popularity: criticizing both the Bush regime and the
bogeyman of Islamic terrorism, says Leonard. For instance, Noam
Chomsky's early hit "9/11" championed the "blowback theory" that 9/11
was repayment for the evils of imperialism. Tarpley refutes this in
his chapter "Islamic Fundamentalism: Fostered by US Foreign Policy,"
in his critique of 9/11 literature, and in recent articles and
interviews on the Mohammed cartoon provocation ( 1 ).
"The fatal drawback of such double-talk is that it reinforces the
enemy images which are the alibi for war on the Middle East," says
Tarpley's publisher, who was the first to print any book in English
questioning the official narrative.
Leonard says "9/11 Truthers are bitter about mass peace movements
like ANSWER and Move-On, which refuse to tackle the only issue Bush
has to push clash of civilizations warfare - and the only one we have
to stop it - 9/11."
"9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA" is certainly his next direct
hit, although it belongs to a strange new world where steel buildings
don't melt, novice pilots can't outfly the Air Force, cell phones
don't work at five miles up, nobody picks a war on America, and "Al-
Qaeda" doesn't even exist, except as the Arab legion of a CIA-MI6
army of dupes, doubles and provocateurs. (
www.nowpublic.com/node/25359 )
###
Progressive Press
760-366-2937 Tel/fax
If you have questions regarding information in this press release
contact the company listed below. I-Newswire.com is a press release
service and not the author of this press release. The information
that is on or available through this site is for informational
purposes only and speaks only as of the particular date or dates of
that information. As some companies / PR Agencies submit their press
releases once per week/month or quarter, make sure check the official
company website for accurate release dates as our site displays the I-
Newswire.com distribution date only. We do not guarantee the accuracy
or completeness of information on or available through this site, and
we are not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in that
information or for actions taken in reliance on that information.
More Information
John Leonard
Published on:
2006-02-23
found at http://i-newswire.com/pr57444.html
_____
False flag 9/11 is No legal base for NATO fighting US wars
Por Foreign Press Foundation - Henk Ruyssenaars - Saturday, Feb. 04,
2006 at 12:16 PM
fpf@chello.nl (Casilla de correo válida)
CNN poll: "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up
surrounding 9/11?" - An overwhelming majority of 89 percent
said 'YES' - while there are still many ignorants one can sell snake
oil and an Eiffel tower to: 'NO - Bush and his cabal is not involved'
voted 11%.
NEW GALLUP: 53% 'FEEL BUSH DELIBERATELY MISLED COUNTRY ON IRAQ WMD'.
by Henk Ruyssenaars
FPF - Feb. 4th 2006 - It's not only the growing and shocking
knowledge that the drama of 9/11* was an 'inside job': a US Gallup
poll, published yesterday, shows that fifty-three percent (53) of the
Americans as is stated: 'FEEL BUSH DELIBERATELY MISLED COUNTRY ON
IRAQ WMD'. This new Gallup Poll - apart from showing some improvement
in the average American's thinking, regretfully also reveals that
still 39% of the ignorant US natives APPROVE OF THE GENOCIDE by Bush
and his war criminals in Iraq.
There's some hope however, because a growing 58% of the respondents
said to DISAPPROVE OF THE SLAUGHTER of fellow human beings by the US.
Not only do more and more people feel misled: 51% is convinced the
U.S. "made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq." That makes 49% to
go; people who still don't know that even the Secretary general of
the United Nations, Kofi Annan, in a rare burst of honesty in a BBC
interview said what is generally known: 'The war in Iraq is
illegal'.*
PNAC NEEDED THE 9/11 DISASTER AS A 'NEW PEARL HARBOR'
Concerning the by the PNAC* needed 9/11 disaster as a 'new Pearl
Harbor' - the Americans in a CNN poll proved to be faster thinking,
when they were asked the following question in November 10, 2004: "Do
you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" -
An overwhelming majority of EIGHTY-NINE PERCENT SAID 'YES' - while
there are still many ignorants one can sell snake oil and an Eiffel
tower to: 'NO, THE BUSH CABAL IS NOT INVOLVED' voted 11%.*
The problem is however, that the US warmongers also lied about 9/11
to the member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,
NATO. Certainly; many so called 'leaders' in Europe absolutely knew
that as usual Bush and his managers, Condoleezza Rice and Uncle Toms
like Colin Powell c.s. were lying through their teeth, but they
thought they could keep it all secret and out of the limelight. This
far it's only their own misleading propaganda channels in the
main$tream media - denying all the facts - that keep the 9/11 lies
alive. But people all over the world know who's lying.
In reality it also means that NATO's involvement in the US cabal's
genocides in their fake 'War on Terror' is based on a huge series of
lies. Thus the NATO Treaty's 'Article Five' - about assisting each
other when a NATO member is attacked - IS ABSOLUTELY NOT VALID.
There's globally no thinking human being to be found anymore, who
thinks that some nasty Arabs in a boring Torah cave defied the multi
billion US secret services, and even all laws of gravity in bringing
down the WTC towers. Too many know 9/11 was an inside job, and
millions hope and work for revenge. The also resist the spread of
fascism, a resistance which by the PNAC terrorists is
called 'terror'.
NATO: 'DESIRE TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH ALL PEOPLES AND ALL GOVERNMENTS'?
Looking at the horrible reality daily unfolding with the
assassinating 'assistance' of NATO, the 'newspeak' in the intro of
the NATO treaty* is enough to give Orwell an orgasm: "The Parties to
this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of
the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace
with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to
safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their
peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty
and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in
the North Atlantic area." [ ]
Everything on every front and level has shown to be a huge pack of
lies, and there is absolutely no legal or other ground nor base to be
found for Washington or the Cabal's Pentagon to refer to Article 5 of
the NATO* Treaty as was done as a justification to commit NATO to the
war crimes. And to make the not informed taxpayers in the NATO
countries pay for the war crimes which the are against.
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENSE
In 'Article 5' it says that: "The Parties agree that an armed attack
against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be
considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree
that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of
the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the
Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in
concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,
including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the
security of the North Atlantic area."
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof
shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures
shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures
necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. -
[andend]
It clearly says: "an armed attack against one or more of them in
Europe or North America" - but we all know that Afghanistan, or Iraq
or Iran - which may be next - HAS NEVER THREATENED TO ATTACK ANY OF
ALL NATO COUNTRIES.
So all those so called 'Leaders' in East, North, South or West, all
those 'Knights of Morality' which make heinous war crimes possible:
where are they? Either they can't make themselves heard, drowned in
the main$tream like most honest people opposing Bush's cabal and
their terror, or they are the spineless and corrupted cowards we
think they are...
ANY PERSON NOT SPEAKING UP AGAINST ALL WAR CRIMES - WHOEVER COMMITS
THEM - IS GUILTY AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
As Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states: "to restore and maintain the
security of the North Atlantic area": the 9/11 'inside job' and the
US terror has absolutely nothing to do with 'the security of the
North Atlantic area'. It is based on sheer PNAC and Pentagon lies,
and now NATO 'cannon fodder' since years is brainwashed and killed or
maimed, sacrificed on the altar of Mammon: the cabal's profitable but
also radioactive 'Killing Fields'. 'Cancer for currency', one might
say?
It's all one big lie: there's not a word about the deadly duty
of 'liberating' Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran.
The conclusion can only be one: the US Cabal's group represents the
origin, the core of global terror.
This racket must be stopped before they kill us all.
Henk Ruyssenaars
RELATED REFERENCES & LINKS:
* Gallup story at Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ajkmw
* CNN - Poll - 89% says US Govt. is involved - Url.:
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.content.html
* 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB - SUBTITLED IN ENGLISH - Could the Bush
administration have had anything to gain from the attack? - Special -
23 minutes - Dutch National Television Documentary - Video - Url.:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm
* The North Atlantic Treaty - Washington D.C. - Url.:
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
* Google search "The Biggest threat to World Peace" - Url.:
http://tinyurl.com/dk2lj
* MSNBC - Live Vote: Do you believe President Bush's actions justify
impeachment? - Url.: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
* "People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their
fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not
forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget
the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget: they also
strike back." - 2005 Nobel Literature Prize winner Harold Pinter -
Url.: http://tinyurl.com/9cyeq
* Kofi Annan - "The war is illegal" - BBC - video & text interview -
Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5pl2v
* The Nuremberg principles: "Any person who commits an act which
constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor
and liable to punishment." - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/byurp
* What or Who is Al Qaida? - The Database - Url.:
http://tinyurl.com/cqx69
* Who's financing? - The 'Federal Reserve' and it's usurers is the
absolute biggest crime against all humanity ever. - Url.:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
* Read the Fightin' Cock Flyer - Url.:
http://fightincockflyer.blogspot.com/
* Help all the troops - of whatever nationality - to come back from
abroad! - AND WITH ALL THEIR WEAPONS, WHICH WE WERE FORCED TO PAY FOR
BY TAXES - [ http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm ] - We need them
badly at home in many countries to fight with us against our so
called 'governments' and their malignant managers - Url.:
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
* FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section
107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the
Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment,
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
information. Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html
FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
http://tinyurl.com/6v8ru
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/amn3q
The Netherlands
FPF@Chello.nl
found at http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/371244.php
____
Slicing Away Liberty: 1933 Germany, 2006 America
I must confess that I'm utterly baffled by the lack of sustained,
organized outrage and opposition from Democratic officials and
ordinary citizens at the Bush Administration's never-ending scandals,
corruptions, war-initiations, and the amassing of more and more
police-state power into their hands.
By Bernard Weiner Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers
And so, facing little effective opposition, the Bush juggernaut
continues on its rampage. How to explain this? Certainly, one could
point to a deficient mass-media, to the soporific drug of TV, to
having to work so hard that for many there's no time for activism, to
education aimed at taking tests and not how to think, to the residual
fear-fallout from 9/11, to a penchant for fantasy over reality, to
the timid and unimaginative Democratic leadership, to scandal-
fatigue, etc. But I would suggest that even more disturbing answers
can be found by examining recent history.
Just so nobody misunderstands what follows: I am not saying that
George W. Bush is Adolf Hitler, or that the rest of his
Administration crew are Nazis. What I am saying is that since history
often is opaque (making it difficult to figure out the contemporary
parallels), when the past does offer a clear lesson for those of us
living today, we should pay special attention.
What happened in Germany in the 1920s and '30s can teach us much
about how a nation in a few years can lose its freedom in incremental
slices as a result of a drumbeat of never-ceasing propaganda, strong-
arm tactics, government snooping and harassment, manufactured fear
of "the other," and wars begun abroad with the accompanying rally-
'round-the-flag patriotism.
In America of the 1980s and '90s, it was extremists on the far-right
fringes who believed the country was moving toward "black helicopter"
authoritarian rule in Washington, and often blamed big-government
liberal Democrats. Now, as a result of just four-plus years of the
Bush Administration (supposedly anti-big government, conservative
Republicans), huge segments of American society, including many in
the mainstream middle, wonder what has happened to our democratic
republic, our civil liberties, our time-honored system of government.
THE ENABLING MANTRA OF 9/11
The Busheviks defend the Administration's harsh, sweeping actions as
necessary in a "time of war." The U.S. was attacked by forces
representing fanatical Islam, this reasoning goes, and the old rules
and systems simply don't apply anymore -- they are old-
fashioned, "quaint." Instead, we are expected to inculcate
the "everything-changed-on-9/11" mantra, the effect of which is to
excuse and justify all. Defense of the fatherland comes first and
foremost, trumping all other considerations, including the
Constitution, checks-and-balances in the three branches of
government, separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions,
international law, etc. etc. (The Busheviks refuse to believe that
one can be muscular in going after terrorists and do so within the
law and with proper respect for the Bill of Rights and Constitutional
protections of due process.)
Not only do the Busheviks pay no attention to modern history, but
they seem to have forgotten how our very nation came into existence
and why: Our Founding Fathers rebelled against a despotic British
monarch, a George who ran roughshod over their rights and privacy and
religious beliefs. Learning that hard lesson, they established a
system of government that scattered power so that no person or party
or religion could easily reinstate authoritarian rule. Politicians
and citizens would have to compromise and cooperate in order to get
anything done. It's a slow, cumbersome system ("Democracy," said
Churchill, "is the worst form of government ever invented, except for
all the others"), but the system they devised served this nation well
for more than two centuries, making American government a model for
much of the rest of the world.
And now, using the fear of terrorism as justification for all their
actions, the Bush-Rove-Cheney-Rumsfeld crew within just a few years
have moved America closer to a militarist, one-party state, led by a
ruler in whom virtually all power is vested. In '30s Germany, this
was called the Fuhrer Principe, the principle of blind obedience to
the wise, all-powerful Supreme Leader. We've seen other such examples
in Stalin's Soviet Union, Kim's North Korea, Mao's China, Saddam's
Iraq, etc.
THE GOOD, THE BAD & LOTS OF UGLY
To the Busheviks, there is pure Evil and pure Good, and because we
Americans are pure Good, especially blessed by God, we can do
anything in the service of fulfilling God's plan, which only we
understand. If you're not with us, you're against us; get on board or
get out of the way.
And so, under BushCheney, we've become an America that has codified
torture in official state policy, that admits it went into a war
under false premises but continues to keep our targeted troops there
anyway, that spies on its citizens without court orders, that is
willing to out a covert CIA agent (one who was probing the extent of
Iran's nuclear program) for reasons of political retaliation,
that "disappears" American citizens into military jails and doesn't
permit them any contact with the outside world, that flies suspects
in its care to secret prisons abroad and "renders" others to
countries that use even more extreme torture measures, that passes
laws permitting police agents to "sneak and peek" into citizens'
homes, phone records, computer databases, library requests, e-mails
and medical records without permission or even informing those whose
privacy had been violated, that neuters the Congress by saying it
will listen to "suggestions" but that the ultimate decisions are to
be made by the Chief Executive, that emasculates the political
opposition in Congress by cutting them out of the key decision-making
processes, that declares the president has the right to violate the
law whenever he so chooses and Congress and the courts have no role
to play in reining in that power-grab, that keeps America on a
permanent war footing in a never-ending battle against a tactic
(terrorism), and on and on.
Even though much of the above transpired in secret and is only now
being revealed, not all of this desecration of the American ideal
happened overnight. As in Germany in the 1930s, the extremists placed
in charge of the government said one thing in public and did another
in private, slowly slicing away at rights of the citizenry, to avoid
triggering a popular uprising.
THE SLICING MACHINE
In the beginning of their rule, the Nazis would announce restrictive
policies aimed at marginalized citizens (the mentally handicapped,
for example), and if no great uproar of objection came from any power
centers such as the churches or hospitals or political parties, the
Nazis would proceed to the next slice aimed, say, at Communists or
homosexuals or Jews or Gypsies. All of these moves were carefully
couched in terms of saving the "national security" of the Reich or
purging the country of "non-productive" or "destructive/dangerous"
elements in society. The Nazi propaganda machine was clever, intense
and all-pervasive, using the Big Lie technique masterfully --
endlessly repeating its falsehoods until the drummed-upon populace
came to accept them as truths.
Many ordinary "good Germans" and moral arbiters went along with these
violations of civil rights and liberties either because they inwardly
agreed with the propagandists or because they were afraid to disagree
in public. Those few leaders in academia, the church and the press
who courageously or even tentatively demurred or asked too many
questions tended to be punished -- demoted, fired, their honors
revoked, etc. -- and so more and more citizens got the message
to "watch what you say." The Nazi juggernaut pushed on, widening its
list of what was forbidden, issuing harsher and harsher edicts, and
treating any dissidents roughly.
Hitler, leader of the rabidly rightwing Nazi party, was installed as
Chancellor in 1933, even though his party was not in the majority, in
the hope that he could bring some order and stability to a society
still reeling from the horrendous economic/social Great Depression
that had devastated the country during the '20s and early-'30s. Given
the reins of power, Hitler felt free to unleash policies that most
citizens earlier had rejected as way too extreme. He had written
about them in his book "Mein Kampf," but many thought he would modify
his demented views once he was inside the establishment corridors.
The "Enabling Act" that gave Hitler total control of the organs of
power in Germany was passed in 1933, following the burning of the
German Reichstag (Parliament), an arson that was blamed on
Communist "terrorists." Hitler "temporarily" suspended civil
liberties during this "national emergency," which of course never
ended. Hitler lied to the Reichstag about his true intentions in
order to obtain approval of the Enabling Act. Shortly after its
passage, Hitler began rounding up tens of thousands of political
enemies and sending them to concentration camps. Democracy was dead
in Hitler's Germany.
The corporate titans, seeing that there might be profit to be gained
from Nazi economic and military policies, supported Hitler's rise and
rule; those who had objections to what he was doing thought they
could tame his passions through their immense influence. But slowly,
and then quickly, the Nazis took over one institution after another;
totalitarianism was in full force. To stamp out any hint of dissent,
all citizens were to spy on each other --"each one of us the Gestapo
of the others," to use Sebastian Haffner's scary phrase -- and the
security forces arrested and tortured at will. (To learn more from
Haffner's contemporaneous account, see "Germany in 1933: The Easy
Slide Into Fascism").
Arming itself to the teeth, Hitler's military forces carried out
lighting-quick wars of conquest ("Blitzkrieg") on weaker nations and
the fascist German empire spread over Europe and, in alliance with
Japan, in Asia as well. More than 40 million human beings would die
in the resulting World War II. Hitler's arrogant belief in his own
intuition and infallibility led to his downfall, as, against all
common sense and advice and military history, he invaded the Soviet
Union and wound up in a destructive quagmire of the worst sort.
THE PARALLEL UNIVERSE
Again, what follows here is not to allege one-for-one comparisons to
Nazism, but to note certain parallel events and tactics that require
special consideration if we are to avoid imitating disastrous history
even more fully.
In our time, a Leader (who, we later learned, probably lost the 2000
election) was installed in the White House by a far-right majority
faction of the Supreme Court. The HardRight had been laying plans for
a restoration of Republican rule after Clinton won re-election; first
they made sure Clinton would be unable to concentrate on his
political agenda by constant iterations of supposed scandals that, as
various probes demonstrated, revealed no illegality. When Clinton
handed the Republicans an opening by engaging in a sexual dalliance
in the White House, they engineered an impeachment and trial by the
Senate; it didn't really matter that Clinton was not convicted, as
the requisite damage had been done, with a side benefit -- his Vice
President and presumable successor, Al Gore, was tainted by being
close to Clinton and thus weakened politically.
The point of all this is that the HardRight restoration forces were
planning for a Bush administration far in advance of the actual 2000
election. There was no one person's "Mein Kampf," but other writings
had laid out in stark terms what this neo-conservative cabal had in
mind for the country's foreign/military policy should they return to
power, especially in the reports of The Project for The New American
Century: "pre-emptive" wars of conquest, permitting no rivals for
influence, control of energy sources, etc. (See "How We Got Into This
Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer", where PNAC lays out the sole-
Superpower strategy for achieving "benevolent hegemony" around the
globe.)
Some of that planning included an invasion of Iraq. Even though
Cheney still won't reveal which oil executives were part of his
secret energy task-force, we do know that at least part of that
panel's meetings in early 2001 involved the question of Iraq, with
discussion and a map of which companies might get exploration blocks
after Saddam was removed from power. Further, former Treasury
Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed how astonished he was that at the
first meetings of the Bush Cabinet in early-2001, much time was spent
on the need to invade Iraq.
The terror attacks of 9/11/2001 served as the equivalent of
the "Reichstag Fire" -- or, seen another way, as a "new Pearl
Harbor," the phrase lifted from a 2000 PNAC document. The Bush
Administration's "Enabling Act" came in several key bills passed by
Congress: the unread and barely-debated Patriot Act, which gave
virtually unlimited police powers to the government in rooting
out "terrorism," and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force
(AUMF), written so broadly as to give the "commander in chief"
authority to take whatever unspecified actions he considered
necessary against those responsible for 9/11. Attorney General
Gonzales recently claimed that the AUMF, in conjunction with Article
2 of the Constitution, permits Bush to authorize both the torture of
prisoners and spying on American citizens, without the need to seek
any court warrants, thus over-riding the Fourth Amendment and the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that states in no uncertain
terms that ALL such eavesdropping requires court permission.
REINING IN DISSENTERS & THE INTERNET
Even though the mainstream, corporate-owned media by and large does
the bidding of the Bush Administration, ignoring and playing down bad
news and hyping the Administration's spin points, full control of the
mass media is still not complete -- even with the Bush Administration
spending $1.6 billion tax dollars last year on its own public-
relations spin. The few insurgent media outlets and reporters, and
the unruly analysts on the internet, are still to be dealt with.
(FEMA has contracted with Halliburton and others to build several
hundred detention camps around the country, ostensibly to house
illegal immigrants but easily convertible for malcontents of one sort
or another. See Maureen Farrell's "Detention Camp Jitters".
Likewise, the Judiciary. Bush&Co. have placed nearly two hundred of
its HardRight jurists on the federal appeals courts, and got its new
Federalist Society justices onto the Supreme Court -- presumably
tipping the balance in favor of more rightwing decisions -- but more
work needs to be done to lock down total control of the Judiciary.
The democratic institutions that possibly could still backfire on the
Bush agenda are approaching terminal weakness: the Republican-
controlled Congress has become a rubber-stamp appendage of Karl
Rove's political office; the Democrats are essentially marginalized
with no real power except to whine and complain and embarrass.
Plus, and most importantly, election votes are counted by the same
GOP-friendly corporations that controlled (and appear to have
manipulated) the vote-tabulations in 2002 and 2004, that manufacture
the computer-voting machines, and that own the secret, proprietary
software.
The one dangerous element that cannot be fully controlled are the
human beings who are the public face of the HardRight elite. Bush is
a simpleton who often says more than he should, giving away the game;
Cheney is a callous Rasputin whose penchant for secrecy and power-
lust as he runs the government constantly gets the group into hot
water; Rumsfeld is a media-savvy incompetent whose dirty fingerprints
are all over the Iraq disaster and the torture scandal; Rove, a
brilliant dirty-pool tactician (his grandfather reportedly was an
active Nazi Party supporter in Germany), is likely to be indicted in
the Plamegate scandal. Others Administration heavies, such as
Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales are little more than toadies
for the big boys.
WE'VE BEEN WARNED
So, let's see: a Supreme Leader who has taken his country into
blitzkrieg ("shock & awe") attacks on foreign nations, bogging down
in an ill-advised invasion quagmire in Iraq; who has traded historic
civil rights and liberties for defense of the fatherland; who has
destroyed or rendered toothless his nominal opposition party; who has
wrapped himself in the flag and questioned the patriotism of those
who raise questions about his policies; who has engaged in a Big Lie
propaganda strategy to move his agenda; who has demonized internal
enemies; who violates the law to get what he wants and claims that he
serves a higher power in doing so; who has marginalized the other two
branches of government; who effectively controls the voting process;
and so on.
What's scary is that it didn't take much verbal stretching to come up
with those parallels, even admitting that life in Bush's U.S.A.,
however comparable in many areas, can scarcely be equated to life in
Hitler's Germany.
Even so, history has presented its warnings to us. Will we understand
and act in time to return our country to a more moderate balancing
point, thus making us better protected in terms of national security?
It's up to each of us.
This bungling Bush crew seems to have a reverse Midas touch;
virtually everything they touch turns not to gold but to foul-
smelling waste matter. They are so out of touch with the American
mainstream that they've brought their own poll numbers down into the
30s, and key Republicans in self-defense are racing to separate
themselves from BushCheney before the November elections. Bush&Co.
may be reckless bumblers, endangering America's national security and
economy and environment, but they still wield the levers of power and
they're not about to give them up; indeed, it appears they are
willing to take us all down with them as they fall.
That's our challenge, to get rid of them as quickly as possible -- by
agitating for impeachment hearings now, or moving for impeachment and
a Senate trial after taking back the House in November -- and help
bring America out from its current dark cave to the bright light of
hope and civility and reality-based governance.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has
taught at various universities, worked as a writer/editor for the San
Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers
(www.crisispapers.org). To comment, write crisispapers@comcast.net .
Copyright 2006, by Bernard Weiner
found at http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=528646
|
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article
|
Wonder what prescription pharmaceutical this hack is on ?
How about immediate arrest and indictment of the perps ...?...
Before they pull off their next false-flag synthetic "terrorist:" event .
Or launch their next war on some manufactured pretext ?
These psychopaths could get us ALL killed.
Impeachment would be a sick joke.
These PNAC guys are gangsters who will stop at nothing.
What is this clueless chap at COUNTERPUNCH expecting to happen ?
A last minute "rescue" by the ;heroic John Kerry, bumbling Howard Dean or the intrepid Clintons ?
Or maybe direct intervention by the G-8 ?
9/11 was MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) from top to bottom.
Completely engineered.
The controlled demolitions of the Towers and WTC7 speak for themselves.
The criminal complicity of the corporate media in the entire hoax makes them as dangerous as the perps who carried out the attacks.
While we're at it ... let's make sure the lead perps are interrogated thoroughly, so we can begin to roll-up their long-running state-sponsored networks of "terrorists" and free-lance black-ops psychos.
COUNTERPUNCH, as always, runs interference for the perps by pushing some version of LIHOP or "fntelligence failure" or "incompetence".
We already have more than enough evidence (according to Morgan Reynolds) to arrest the responsible perps and bring them to trial.
Let's do it !!!!